Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday February 08, 2012 @12:15AM
from the can't-broadcast-where-their-combat-UAVs-are dept.

An anonymous reader writes "There is media (but not public?) outcry over the Pasadena, CA police switch from analog radio that can be picked up by scanners to encrypted digital radio that cannot. 'On Friday, Pasadena police Lt. Phlunte Riddle said the department was unsure whether it could accommodate the media with digital scanners. Riddle said the greatest concern remains officer safety. "People who do bank robberies use scanners, and Radio Shack sells these things cheap," Riddle said. "We just had a robbery today on Hill Avenue and Washington Boulevard," Riddle said. "The last thing I want to do is to have the helicopter or the officers set up on the street and the criminals have a scanner and know where our officers are." Just prior to the switch over, city staffers said they would look into granting access to police radio chatter, most likely by loaning media outlets a scanner capable of picking up the secure signal.'"

So, the police have a legitimate reason for securing their network, and have discussed options accommodating other stake-holders who might be inconvenienced by improving their system's security. It sounds to me like the police are handling this sanely and fairly. What's the problem here?

The problem is the status quo. People got used to have access to something (and I'm sure some have a legitimate reason for it), so it is conisdered bad form to remove said feature. That's the way I see it, at least.

Realtime radio chatter is useful for getting data out to the media, for safety or media-assists. Examples: Amber Alert, Traffic accidents, police chases, armed robbery. The less people that get caught in the crossfire the better.

Non-realtime radio chatter is less useful, but allows for the media to scrape through it, but doesn't allow the media to alert the public to dangerous situations to stay clear of.

Some compromise is needed. For example the 24 hour news networks like CNN, co

The way the police are headed recently we need every single control and check possible over what they say and do. Letting them censor their own communications is a bad idea.

*Everything* the police does should be made public. If it was up to me I'd have every public servant walking around with a video camera on his shoulder recording everything they say/do. We need to watch the watchmen.

OTOH, yes, letting criminals listen in real time isn't good - it helps them get away. There's a better solution then 'encrypt everything' though...

Come now.Be reasonable, They can already put us in jail for pointing a cellphone at them. Not allowed to record what they do already.In Fullerton they murdered a guy, A bunch of cops watched while one got mad and beat him to death.I am a conservative. (More of Less)Cops though have got to become a smaller force that we expect better of. Till then. Fuck the bad ones, and fuck all the rest that do not do anything about it.

Actually 'encrypt everything' is a perfectly fine solution. Even under the "protect our rights" flag (and I'm not sure how being able to follow police radio chatter is a rights issue) it would be trivial to either set up a station which can decrypt the radio traffic and record the traffic to a device somewhere. Hell - just record the encrypted stream and make it possible for people and the media to request access to radio traffic after forty-eight hours have passed.

(a) If you think any country in the so-called west is a police state, then you need an introduction to a real police state. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure there are rights violations and the police are heavy handed at times. However, that's what happens when you give people authority over others - some become heroes, some do a good job and some are corrupted. However calling the USA or any western country a police state is an insult to those actually living in a police state.

or if there were something that the police thought the public should be aware of for their own safety then perhaps they could just i dunno, tell the media?

As is the case in other countries. In the UK for example you can listen to the police radio (assuming it isn't encrypted which is the default), but you can't act on anything you hear. So the TV couldn't report a chase was in progress unless the police had issued a warning to that effect.

Thus proving, once again, that the rest of the world is full of fucking idiots. Not that they have a monopoly on that, just that they express themselves differently. But I have no doubt our own idiots will come out in favor of such a regime if this case gets enough media attention.

In the United States the media has had the long standing job of watching over the shoulder of the government to keep them honest. This is particularly true for police because there position as the enforcement arm has historically been among the most vulnerable to corruption. The radio is specifically important because it is the central hub for all police communications and currently the media, and the public, are privy to the same level of knowledge about the activities of individual officers as police he

While a valid point, I am more than a little concerned about police forces never having to worry about what they are saying (or planning i.e., covering up). This combined with their propensity to confiscate and erase the devices of anyone recording them publicly does not a democratic society make.

The reasoning the police give for having privacy is a lot more realistic: to deny criminals the ability to track police actions.

Except, that reasoning may seem sound, but the people they want to block are not criminals until they have been charged and convicted by a court of law. What they actually want: to deny all people the ability to track police actions.

Its up to you if you accept that this is proper, but history shows that some amount of oversight is desireable, even necessary.

A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Only a court may identify those criminals, but that doesn't mean that when a bank is robbed there are no criminals. Of course there are, we just don't know who they are until the court convicts them.

Therefore, since the cops can't identify the criminals, the only way to block them is to block everyone.

I'm actually surprised it took them this long. Operational security is important, and bad guys listening on scanners has been a fiction theme for what, 25 years? It's been well proven to happen in practice too.

And no, for the commenter above, time delay doesn't work. Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream. Besides, providing it requires public moneys put to a use outside the police department budget.

I'm as suspicious of some members of the police as the next guy, and feel they generally need good supervision. But transmitting their radio signals in the clear is a simple detriment to the public safety mission.

Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream.

By this logic, the public should have no method of determining their local police forces typical response times, how well or under staffed they are, etc. Being able to not reveal a thing to the public might do wonders for the security of the police, but without some oversight how can you tell if the police are doing their job well or not?

In other words.... Operational Security is for military operations. Last time I checked we lived in a free society in which our military is 100% separated from civilians. By that I mean that a Colonel armed with a gun can't walk around the streets and start ordering civilians to do anything, unlike some parts of the world.

Operational Security does not apply to law enforcement. Once you take away the tremendous bullshit of the War on Drugs, just how much "Operational Security" is really required on a day-to-day basis? I suspect a hell of lot less than anything that would justify it.

The public safety mission is harmed when you take away oversight and accountability. Radio signals in the clear is part of oversight and accountability. The public has every right to know response times, unit numbers, processes, practices, methodologies, etc. After all, they work for us.

Is the proper balance being struck here? Somehow I doubt it.

Now in situations in which a SWAT team is actually required I don't object to some Operational Security during that particular operation and full disclosure afterwards. Those situations are fairly rare when compared against all crime, once you exclude all the aforementioned bullshit of the drug war.

Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

Because they have a job that's far less dangerous than fishing for crab off Alaska.

Snark aside, that's the usual bullshit excuse - that they're risking their lives and all that. Sure, there are a very few places in this country where officers would probably increase their safety by volunteering instead to sweep for IEDs by hand in Iraq. But by and large, the common knowledge of it being dangerous to be a cop is absurdly overstated. Yet this continues to justify military-like armaments, ridiculous pay and pension, effective immunity from prosecution, a lack of transparency and oversight, et cetera.

Black males 18-35 have high incarceration rates. This comes more from getting sentenced to imprisonment. They actually have fairly low charge rates. The problems with black males are:

a) They commit violent crimes that often result in sentence or lengthy sentence.b) They don't tend to plea down successfully. They don't work the system well.c) They tend to have other characteristics that lead to increased sentencing like dropping out of schoold) They are likely subject to discrimination in terms of p

The public safety mission is harmed when you take away oversight and accountability. Radio signals in the clear is part of oversight and accountability. The public has every right to know response times, unit numbers, processes, practices, methodologies, etc. After all, they work for us.

Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

Save your battle for the right to take video of the police in public. Laws that prevent you from filming anyone in public is a real issue. This is work communication and rarely if ever do I hear of it being used to for oversight of the police. Videos of police abuse is the number 1 way to find the few bad apples in the force who cannot handle the authority they are entrusted with.

Perhaps there is an argument to have all police radio communication recorded and make it available to the courts and requests from the public for release later. I just dont think real time eavesdropping on the police will make a difference in watching over the police for abuse.

Interesting choice of words, "work communications". When I was learning about radio and the frequency band assignments, I noticed the UHF Police frequencies are in what is designated by the FCC as "Business Band", unlike the VHF frequencies where Police have a specific sub-band or slot of frequencies assigned by the govt'. I asked my mentor why they were in the Business Band, and he said "What they discussing over the air? Police Business!" Kind of funny, but it always stuck in my memory.

As to your comment, all the dispatch traffic on all channels is ALREADY continuously recorded in case there is a need later to inspect the information to figure out what happened during a shoot-out or whatever. So yes, audio can and is used for oversight, but If the information is needed it is already there, and it can be reviewed and perhaps released if necessary.

Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream.

By this logic, the public should have no method of determining their local police forces typical response times, how well or under staffed they are, etc. Being able to not reveal a thing to the public might do wonders for the security of the police, but without some oversight how can you tell if the police are doing their job well or not?

those are operational statistics, response times etc can be combined by just having some 3rd party audit guy go through the feed recordings.

just give a time delay feed, if they really need to have something. just giving few media members decode radios just opens the cesspit of "who exactly is media?". relying on them for catching dirty cops etc is a no go anyways, it's not like they don't have cellphones, in situation where everyone can listen to the radio if I were a legit cop I'd use cellphones too to respond to bank robberies and to arrange busts.

Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream.

By this logic, the public should have no method of determining their local police forces typical response times, how well or under staffed they are, etc. Being able to not reveal a thing to the public might do wonders for the security of the police, but without some oversight how can you tell if the police are doing their job well or not?

I think the point is that you don't have any right to that information in real time. Of course it would fucking help criminals if they definitely knew that at the moment
they were burgling a house there were no police within twenty minutes response time.

I used to work in the media for a company providing traffic reports for the local TV and radio stations. We worked very closely with law enforcement, including having 2-way radios provided by them so we could offer our aircraft and pilot when they needed air support. When we heard about speed traps they were setting up (they call them "directed patrols") we'd publicly announce them as part of our traffic reports. One day we were talking with some of the officers and the subject was brought up. At first we thought they may be upset that we were doing so, but on the contrary they encouraged us to do so, saying they saw a significant reduction in speeders and tickets written after we announce it. This helped them in their goal of reducing the drivers traveling at excess speed in the troubled areas. In fact they started calling us to let us know if we didn't hear it on the scanners, and even gave us their plans at times far in advance so we could warn drivers ahead of time. In short, they'd rather have someone hear about their trap and not speed through the area, than operate in silence and write more tickets.

While most drivers that knew about the traps adjusted their speed accordingly, there were some I'm sure that simply avoided the area and continued to speed elsewhere. The thing to remember is just because a trap is set up somewhere doesn't mean there aren't just as many officers as normal still out on patrol. Most of the time they bring in reserve officers of have officers work extra shifts for those directed patrols, so it doesn't impact the regular patrols. This means you're just as likely to get caught speeding outside of the trap area as you are any other day. The old "all the officers are busy in area X, that means I can do whatever I want in any other area" doesn't apply with speed traps or other pre-planned increased enforcement.

Like radar detectors, scanners aren't a "get out of jail free card" for traffic violations and are more of a false sense of security than anything. Also, in many areas it is an additional crime to use a scanner in the commission of a crime. While the burden of proof may be nearly impossible, if they could prove you used a scanner to avoid police patrols in order to be able to violate traffic laws, you'd have a lot more troubles to deal with.

People got used to have access to something (and I'm sure some have a legitimate reason for it)...

This is about internal police comm channels. What legitimate reason is there to allow others to tap into that? Freedom of the press and all that, sure, but facilitation of the press by the police, why?

The cops don't owe the press anything, and they should be thankful for the free ride they've had until now.

Fifth Estate, go do your damned job. It's your job to figure out how to do that.

The bigger question should be how much personal information with respect to those accused/victims/witnessing crimes is indiscriminately broadcast over police radio.

No, that is simply a very good argument for encrypting everything and never releasing details of any of it to the public.

I really don't see why "the media" should have access to confidential police information that Mr X of Y address has been questioned on suspicion of Z if it turns out to be a mistake and he is released without charge later. You only need Z to be "rape" or "possession of child pornography" and Mr X is in serious trouble, even if he is totally innocent.

They don't release that information over the air. They just don't, ever. They use KDT terminals in the car for any sensitive information like names, addresses, etc. The most they will usually EVER give over the air is a phone number or situation codes like "Signal One", "Code Black" or "10-8". If they can't use the data terminals, most of the cops have figured out that a cell phone is an easy way to keep things off the air and confidential, a lot of them use the phone to call their dispatch and discuss any sensitive information like the type mentioned above on a regular basis and hardly ever use their radios at all anymore. As they switch to digital and encrypted type communications, they actually are finding their radios more useful than before - due to the extra margin of security, they actually CAN safely discuss names, addresses, etc.

That said, my Cook County Sheriff here in Chicago has been running full-time encryption since they went digital about 4 years ago. A lot of smaller city agencies are also in the process of going digital and want full-time encryption, too. When they did this, the world did not stop, the media did not dry up and blow away - somehow they still report on crimes in a timely manner, but a bunch of scanner geeks and hams were pissed off. That was it, that was the sum total of the impact. Unfortunately, I'm one of the hams that used to listen in because it was interesting when there was no Ham traffic to listen to, but hey, life is short - there's a lot of other things to do and listen to elsewhere!

The same happens here. Our officers do most everything on MDT so radio communication is very light. They really do use cell phones for anything sensitive. They also have played with Skype calls on MDT's (but that's usually to talk about wives and girlfriends). Cop to cop meetings along dark sections of road are still the best way to communicate so even the boss doesn't hear.

These idiot "watchdogs" who think they're keeping an eye on local government by listening to their scanner have no clue. They are

Not only that, but this is exactly the kind of thing that people suggest as an effective solution all the time. Comments like "If they're not smart enough to encrypt their transmissions, it's their own fault for having people intercept them."

My only problem with this scheme, and I work for the local constabulatory as a civilian, is that they hope to give preferential treatment to the 'press'. If they won't let Joe Citizen have access to, then no one should. Just because you work for a paper or TV or Radio station doesn't make you better or more able to access information than anyone else. Maybe it's different in California, but where I live, there is no law granting the 'press' special powers or privilege to information that is denied to everyone else.

My only problem with this scheme, and I work for the local constabulatory as a civilian, is that they hope to give preferential treatment to the 'press'. If they won't let Joe Citizen have access to, then no one should. Just because you work for a paper or TV or Radio station doesn't make you better or more able to access information than anyone else. Maybe it's different in California, but where I live, there is no law granting the 'press' special powers or privilege to information that is denied to everyone else

The problem with that is, at least right now, they would not Dare say something into the radio such as "Hey disregard that 911 call, that's the guy who banged my wife" or "That's the prick that tried to assert his 'rights' with me, so be sure to rough him up after dealing with that burglar"

At least with press access, they still wouldn't dare say such a thing, while still having their legit communications secured.

We all know what atrocities the US government covers up and classifies so proper legal action ca

Government unobserved very quickly starts to smell very bad. Often government only has to obfuscate their actions in plain sight to hide their actions. The City of Bell in Los Angeles is a prime example. Take an organization that is granted extraordinary powers, self regulated, and (when caught out) investigates itself and you have a recipe for disaster. The only protection that the public has to protect itself is to be able to observe in a meaningful manner the actions of the police.

Do you think that police are good and magically 'special' so they can be trusted? It is a pretty well excepted fact that a single person, observed, will tend to make choices that we would describe as moral simply because they are being observed. You put together a group of like minded people and then you can start to see really questionable behavior. When you get really large masses of people in a hierarchy then you can get truly obscene, despotic behavior. Question any police officer you know and you will find seeds of this. They have a culture ingrained with the idea that the laws don't really apply to them combined with equal parts of "they are a brotherhood that stands apart" and the fact that they investigate themselves.

Ask any police officer you know if they have chosen to not give a 'brother officer' a traffic citation simply because they are a police officer ("One of the brotherhood"). They will say things like "professional courtesy" and if pressed for a better reason will come up with something like, "I don't give them a ticket because this is someone that I might have to count on to back me up in an emergency situation at a moments notice". Really!??? The police officer's excuse breaks down to, "a policeman might be so unreliable and sophomoric to not pitch in during an emergency situation because someone gave them a traffic ticket"? I don't believe that answer for a minute even though the officer probably believes it, because it has been ingrained in him through the culture of his department and training.
Let's break it down:
- They can choose which laws apply to their brotherhood.
- They have a culture of protecting their own before they protect the public. (all people are this way)
- They are put in situations where on an average day they see the worst in humanity and the normal human thing to do is to anticipate/expect/look-for that behavior out of of every new person they meet.
- They have a culture of secrecy.
- And then they investigate themselves and only they can decide to send one of their own in front of a judge.
- - - - - - - - -

Trust your government as far as you can spit upwind in a hurricane. A government unobserved is a recipe for tyranny... and the baking time till ready is almost instantaneous. Remember that Morality is a function of consciousness, and a government (or corporation) is not conscious so it cannot make moral choices. They may appear moral or the actions may agree with your moral choices but that doesn't make them moral choices.
It is actually just a big process populated by people wanting to justify their own positions and to a large part by people who think citizens are accountable to 'The Process instead of the other way around. A big thing to look for are governments that think that the constituents are their source of revenue. This tells you what the people at the top think the relationship is. And everyone else in the hierarchy is sucking from the teat above them so you know how the Kool-Aid is distributed.

... Maybe it's different in California, but where I live, there is no law granting the 'press' special powers or privilege to information that is denied to everyone else...

The press would like us to believe otherwise but it is the same in the U.S. The only right that the press has is that it can not be muzzled, it has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to speak. It has no right to access the government beyond what a normal citizen may nor does it have any immunity from laws when pursuing a story. If they wiretap, trespass, etc they can be arrested and prosecuted.

When the press is treated advantageously compared to a normal citizen it is merely a courtesy or politics. Nothing in the Constitution requires it.

I would like to point out that your use of the term "press" in this post can be misleading (although nothng about your post is inaccurate). People often make the mistake of thinking (a mistake that the media generally encourages) that when the First Amendment says "freedom...of the press" it is referring to the media when in fact it is referring to the freedom of the average citizen to use a printing press to publish their ideas.

The only right that the press has is that it can not be muzzled, it has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to speak.

Just as any other citizen has. The media is given no rights in the Constitution

So, the police have a legitimate reason for securing their network, and have discussed options accommodating other stake-holders who might be inconvenienced by improving their system's security. It sounds to me like the police are handling this sanely and fairly. What's the problem here?

If digital radio encryption is actually secure, then nothing--provided they adhere to their promise of keeping "chatter" open and loaning the media (i.e., the fourth branch of government) secure scanners to maintain accountability. However, they may run into the false sense of security problem; if criminals break the encryption and start listening in to conversations that the police think are secure, then they have only succeeded in making police scanners useless for civilians, but far more useful for crimi

I think you are absolutely right, and both the police and the military should publish all their operational detials live online, maybe using both facebook and twitter, as well as SMS alerts for when something particularly sensitive is about to happen.

If you think this will prevent the bank robbers from listening, you are naive beyond salvation.

The only thing this will do is prevent the public and media from listening to what your watchers are doing. ONLY THAT!

if now the robbers tune in with a $5 radio, tomorrow they will tune in with a $5000 radio or $5000 bribe, or a loot share for more people eying the police and reporting to them with $5 radios.anyway, they will get around it. because well, that's the minimal investment on their part. the big investment is they risking their lives or freedom behind bars. and that they are already committing.

So, the police have a legitimate reason for securing their network, and have discussed options accommodating other stake-holders who might be inconvenienced by improving their system's security. It sounds to me like the police are handling this sanely and fairly. What's the problem here?

...but the ambulance chasers.. erhm "media" might not be the first to get to the hospital to harass victims!

So, the police have a legitimate reason for securing their network, and have discussed options accommodating other stake-holders who might be inconvenienced by improving their system's security. It sounds to me like the police are handling this sanely and fairly. What's the problem here?

The problem, as I see it, is that without access to their network, the population they are sworn to protect cannot verify for themselves the legitimacy of the need to secure the system on an ongoing basis.

The US Constitution grants US citizens certain rights for observing the behaviors of the State, and the monitoring of police scanners is an important, unbiased tool for that observation.

A better solution would be for the police to adopt the digital radios, but then rebroadcast their transmissions on the ex

hang on, these are SUPPOSED to be PUBLIC SERVANTS. Aren't they? That's what all the literature says. "To protect and SERVE"?

A little history:

The precursors to State-run police forces were a gang on private enforcers known as the Bow Street Runners, who patrolled most of London selling their services to anyone who could afford them or needed them badly enough - for example, to dish out vigilante justice to someone who had welched on a deal or raped someone's dog. They did their job so well, the Government wa

This has happened in hundreds of jurisdictions, and its been going on for a dozen years. Some jurisdictions only encrypt special tactical frequencies used for emergencies, but most realize that as soon as they did that they needed the decryption capable radios for every officer and car any way, and there was not much saving leaving regular channels unencrypted. They bought the radios, why not use them.

Not having reporters and wanna-be-cops show up at every incident was sort of a side benefit in their eyes.

Why the press would expect to be "loaned" a radio is beyond me. The press never "loans" their confidential sources to the police.

Are you saying that the press never shares information with the police? I find that to be incredibly unlikely. Are you saying that they have "confidential" information they don't share with the police? Possibly, but don't you have confidential information you don't share with the police? (Such as the ounce of weed you keep hidden behind the plates? Or the details of the red light you ran through the other day?)

the cops are supposed to work for the public interest, but they don't. they work for the state's and thus not for us. the media is supposed to keep tabs on the government's activities, but they're really in it for their own personal gain and glory these days. I think if public money gets pumped into it, it should be accountable to the public should individuals take an interest. in this era of standing up for your rights = terrorist, locking up the radio broadcasts is just one more step towards an opaque state that can do whatever it wants.

Ok, I'm usually all for governmental transparency, but really? You expect police tactical communications to be public? Do you expect military comms to be in the clear as well, for the sake of transparency?

Record them, and publish them a week or so after the fact for transparency, but real-time police comms need to be secured so they can actually do their job.

Fortunately for me, I'm already outside the Land of the Dubiously Free (how's Gitmo going? Enjoying your free speech zones?). And while there are obvious differences between police and military communications, the one glaring similarity is that it's bloody stupid to tell the people you are trying to catch (and who may be willing to kill you) where you are, and what you are doing.

I wouldn't object to a delay, say 15 minutes, before public availability, if the data is streamed directly onto a public access server not controlled by the police force (perhaps a service bureau that acts as a neutral third party). That would meet the public's right to the information, and also the need for the police to not let the bank robbers listen in while the police are saying "you two go around the back, you go up on the roof, and we'll go in the front door on five... one... two... three... four... FIVE!".

"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."

Our local PD (in our small town of ~40k heads) decided to encrypt all of their radio traffic a couple of years ago. I wrote a (scathing, factual, naming-names) letter to the editor of the local news rag about that time, pronouncing that the concept was stupid and that all of their reasons for the concept were also stupid. (I'd link to my published letter and/or provide more details, but I like the aura of anonymity here, and my name isn't really Adolf Osborne.)

I have even been encouraged by a sergeant at the local sheriff's office to request recordings, as often as I feel like, under the FOIA, just to make it a pain in PD's ass. (The SO has encryption available to them, but they do not use it unless it is important that the things being discussed remain secret...unlike the PD, who does it 24x7. Further, the PD refuses to share their encryption key with the SO, rendering moot any chance that the two overlapping agencies might be able to help eachother out efficiently.)

I nearly lost my job over that letter, since I'm one of the guys responsible for actually programming the radios and I have the requisite encryption keys on my thumb drive and can (pretty much literally) do whatever I want to make things work/fuck up the system.

BUT: I never thought of a delay. 15 minutes is perfect. It allows the people to know what's going on with their paid and well-armed uniformed thugs, while also preventing active criminals from understanding the goings-on of the police department.

It is a crime - spoliation of evidence, following which it is entirely possible to have an action dismissed on that basis. Problem is, it's hardly ever prosecuted. Saying that, there have been some fairly high profile cases where US Senators have successfully filed motions to dismiss based on the fact that records they claim to have been erased by prosecutors due to their not being conducive to their case, and it has occurred the other way round as well. Remember Watergate? Those missing 18 minutes would su

What is key management like on these civilian encrypted radio systems? Can a single stolen (or hacked) key decrypt transmissions indefinitely? Do they regularly replace the keys? How do they securely update keys across hundreds of radios in the field?

Most likely this is a trunked radio system. Trunk following scanners have been out for years. A trunked radio system is a subscription radio system just like cell phones. Disabling a stolen radio is a simple administration task encrypted or not.

These are not simplex walkie talkies, but are duplex radios with a control channel.

It's not just trunked but P25, with encryption. P25 digital signals can be scanned with a modern higher end scanner specifically designed for P25. Trunktrackers will not cut it. There is regular and encrypted P25. Encrypted P25 cannot be decrypted by the scanners. You'd need 2-way radio that can connect to the radio system as a user on the system and have approval from the agency to allow you to hear decrypted radio traffic.

Some media and agencies do this, but it's not too common. The radios are rather pricey and leasing them out tends to make the agencies nervous and liable to pull the plug at any moment.

There are also methods to break the P25 encryption mainly based on sloppy key handling by the agency and ways to take advantage of sloppy practices by the officers.

Most encrypted (analogue or digital) radio systems have a remote stun/kill feature. When the radio is reported lost it is sent a message that disables it, or the disable code is sent regularly until the radio gives a stun/kill acknowledge. At that point the radio is a brick.

Queensland Police have been using encrypted P25 radios (not trunked) for some time in Brisbane & the Gold Coast. The media cannot monitor, but neither can tow-truck operators, which improves safety at road crashes. The clear-speech a

I can testify to that. I've the old PD I worked for used unencrypted radios. I'd run someone, and the moment I unkeyed my mic their phone would blowup.You try taking a crash report from an already shaken up 16 y/o while everyone she knows is trying to call her. I made the mistake of asking her to turn off her phone till we were done. That backfired, everyone started to call 911 because she wasn't answering her phone.

I'll accept the police having encrypted communications, the moment EVERY COP on duty has video and audio surveillance on their person at all times recorded on person, and rebroadcast to their squad car for preservation without tampering.

From what I gather cell phone jammers seriously screw with this mode of communication, I think it's a bad idea all around to encrypt radios, not to mention repeater issues and the relatively low number of keys available.

Nestled in quiet suburban Pasadena, a small university without a football team is full of hundreds of students who could probably crack the encryption scheme faster than they can finish their CS/EE midterms. That is, if they could be bothered to....

So your next-door-neighbour rape-victim who wants to remain completely anonymous because of the intense psychology damage it would do her to have that information be public doesn't get a choice?

In my country, it's hardly ever been possible to listen in on police radio (encrypted analog radios for decades even, I believe). I'm not sure if it's even legal to listen in, to be honest. And probably for good reason. You have *no* more reason to have that information public than victims and "alleged" criminals

My 2cents police radio use is not for point 2 point communications but broadcast communication so that everyone on the team maintains an image of whats going on. Police have always had alternate methods of communicating sensitive information off the radio even if that was only cell phones.

In this context my concern is not that encrypting broadcast is a bad thing but that encryption will be seen as an excuse for being lazy and not using point to point communication systems to convey operationally sensitive information.

Even if the encryption were 100% perfect and you had perfect operational security there are "alleged" bad guys routinely being escorted to station in the back seats of these vechicles.

The incidental effect of criminals being able to listen in is outweighed by the need to check the overreach of law enforcement.

Nothing but real-time broadcasts in the clear of all broadcasts is acceptable for accountability to the constituents. A delay would not prevent law enforcement from committing an unlawful action, it would only provide time to cover things up.

Since they are in the public interest, the only path that preserves accountability and transparency is to leave things in the clear without any delay or interruption.

Make a media room at the police station, put one of the police's receivers there, and let the media guys send drones to listen. The drones can call their companies when something of interest happens. The police get their encrypted radio, the media get their live feed, and people who shouldn't be listening might not be able listen (how good is the encryption?).

The keys for an Aussie Police system have been out for at least 2 years according to people who were at Ruxcon this year talking about this very topic.

The radios sent lots of known plain text at the end of every call and its trivial to get the encrypted data. The rest is lucking into a key for newer systems or trying them all for some of the older systems.

I agree with Dan541. I regularly use these digital "encrypted" radios in NSW (not sure about other states), and these are used by all emergency services in the state (not just the police). Each group has its own "talk groups".What I want to add to this conversation, is that the Pasadena police will most likely be using the Motorola radios sicne these are the most widely used digital radios. These kinds of digital radios also have a central control opcen. Basically, if a radio is stolen, it can be locked out

That is because the media has managed to get the average person to think that when the First Amendment says "freedom...of the press" it is using "press" as a synonym for "news media". When in actuality when the Framers used the word "press" in the First Amendment, they meant "printing press" and were saying that anybody's right to publish anything they wish shall not be infringed.